Following the defeat of two state senators in recalls last September, Colorado Democrats are continuing an age-old tradition — trying to revamp recall laws. Practically anytime a surprising recall gets on the ballot — going back to California in 1915 — legislators immediately look to modify the law. Despite the seemingly self-serving nature of many post-recall reform proposals, Colorado's Democrats have a very good point in pushing this one forward. Another regular feature of recall laws throughout the country is that they are frequently poorly drafted and do not conform to general election laws. The result can be a big roadblock in the path of citizens looking to use the recall. And, as we saw in 2013 in Colorado, these legislative failures cause expensive delays and litigation.

The proposed Colorado changes are an attempt to conform recall law to existing election laws, some of which were passed earlier in 2013. The major focus is to reverse a judicial ruling that prevented the recall from being an all-mail election and remove a law that mandates that candidate have until 15 days before the recall election to submit signatures to qualify for the ballot (state election law allows 18 days for a regular election).

Advertisement

Due to the fact that the original electoral law changes were opposed by Republicans, the recall reform is leading to debate and to questions whether it needs to be done by a referendum. There are obvious questions being raised as to whether the recall changes are motivated by last year's recall. They are undoubtedly right. But as history shows, that doesn't mean that recalls shouldn't be fixed.

It should come as no surprise that recalls — successful or not — immediately lead to attempts to change the law. Elected officials ignore recall laws until the day some constituent comes knocking on the door with a fistful of signatures. But once they see the recall in action, they generally want no part of it and look to change the law. In Wisconsin, following the 2012 recall elections against the governor, lieutenant governor and 13 state legislators, the Republican-controlled state legislature has tried to heavily limit the power of the recall, trying to allow them only when there is a showing of malfeasance (such as an indictment) or demonstrable incompetence. So far, that change hasn't gone anywhere — it would need direct voter approval to pass.

Arizona, which saw the recall successful used against Republican state Senate president Russell Pearce in 2011, has also looked at a number of possible fixes, some of which appear designed to make it significantly harder to get a recall on the ballot. And Michigan, where they didn't have to put the new law to a vote of the populace, actually made significant changes to its law following the recall of House Rep. Paul Scott, a Republican, in 2011. The result has been a huge drop in recalls in the state — Michigan has gone from 31 recalls in 2011 to 13 in 2013.

While these facts could lead to the quick assumption that any changes to recall law should be seen as questionable, that view would be unfair. For another odd feature of recalls is that the laws are frequently both poorly drafted and do not incorporate changes to other parts of election law. In one noteworthy example in California, the recall law only allowed voters to cast ballots on the replacement race if they voted to remove the elected official in the first place. A federal judge threw this provision out as unconstitutional during the Gray Davis recall in 2003 (Colorado had the same provision, and it was also thrown out. The proposed recall changes would also eliminate this provision).

However, the law was still on the books in local jurisdictions, and would have required another lawsuit for last year's proposed recall of San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, a Democrat. This year in Idaho, a school board member was facing a recall threat over a proposal to allow school staffers to be armed. The recall petition seemed to have gotten the requisite signatures, but since the petitioners handed them in in two batches (which Idaho specifically allows for regular elections but the recall doesn't allow), the second batch was thrown out, and the recall canceled.

The reason to make these changes to the law may not be clear. Many are launched by local volunteer citizens who are using a low cost device to effect political change. They are not that conversant on the particulars of electoral law (as the Idaho example shows) nor do they necessarily have the time or the money to fight a recall in court. For elected officials, this means they have a big advantage in going to the courts to stop a recall from happening — there is a good chance that citizens may just abandon the effort. The result is that poorly drafted laws dampen the ability of voters to use the recall.

Colorado Democrats may be motivated by last year's defeats to revamp the state's recall law. But that shouldn't stop voters of all stripes from supporting needed revisions.

Joshua Spivak is a senior fellow at the Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform at Wagner College. He writes the Recall Elections Blog.

Lockheed says object part of 'sensor technology' testing that ended ThursdayWhat the heck is that thing? It's fair to assume that question was on the minds of many people who traveled along Colo. 128 south of Boulder this week if they happened to catch a glimpse of what appeared to be a large, silver projectile perched alongside the highway and pointed north toward town.

PARIS (AP) — Bye, New York! Ciao, Milan! Bonjour, Paris! The world's largest traveling circus of fashion editors, models, buyers and journalists has descended on the French capital, clutching their metro maps and city guides, to cap the ready-to-wear fashion season. Full Story